History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v5.c71.s1.52

v5.c71.s1.52

It appears that Kātyāyana³² divided sinful acts into five classes viz. *mahāpāpa* (mortal sins), *atipāpa* (the highest sins than which there is nothing worse), *pātaka* (sins similar to mahāpātakas), *prāsaṅgika* (due to association or contact) and *upapātaka* (minor sins). The Bhaviṣya-purāna also says that those sins that are declared to be equal to mahāpātakas (by Manu and others) are called *pātakas* Vṛddha-Hārīta also (IX. 215-216) speaks of five kinds viz. *mahāpāpa, pātaka, anupātaka, upapāpa* and *prakīrṇaka* (miscellaneous) and states (IX. 216-218) that those sins which are said to be like mahāpātaka are pātakas, that anupātakas are sins lesser than pātakas, that upapātakas are lesser than pātakas and *prakīrṇaka* sins are the least sinful of all. The Viṣṇudharmasūtra (33 3-5) speaks of nine kinds of lapses viz. atipātaka, mahāpātaka, anupātaka, upapātaka, jātibhraṁśakara (effecting loss of caste), saṅkarīkaraṇa, (rendering one as degraded as a man of a mixed caste), apātrīkaraṇa (rendering the perpetrator unworthy of receiving a gift), malāvaha (causing defilement) and prakīrṇaka (miscellaneous). Atipātakas, acc. to Viṣṇu Dh. S 34.1, are sexual intercourse with one's mother, daughter or daughter-in-law and the only expiation for them is entering fire. Manu omits the separate mention of atipātaka and anupātaka and includes most of them under those that he designates as equal to one of the four well-known mahāpātakas. Kātyāyana quoted in the Prāyaścittamuktāvalī of Divākara (folio 3 a) adds sexual intercourse with one's sister as atipātaka to the three mentioned by Viṣṇu Hārīta Dh. S (it appears) quoted by the Mit knew³³ of a variety of pātakas called anupātaka, but from the way in which the several pātakas are arranged it looks as if *atīpātaka* in Hārīta was a lesser sin than mahāpātaka Manu (in chap XI) refers to all the kinds of pātakas found in the Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra except atipātakas Usually five mahāpātakas have been enumerated from the days of the Chāndogya Up (quoted on p. 12) viz brāhmaṇa murder, drinking spirituous liquor, theft (generally understood as theft of brāhmaṇa's gold), sexual intercourse with the wife of a *guru* and association with the perpetrators of any of these four (for a year³⁴) Vide Vas I 19-20, Manu XI 55, 180, Yāj III. 227, 261), Viṣṇudharmsūtra 35 1-5, Vṛddha-Hārīta IX 174. Manu mentions certain sins as equal to Mahāpātakas which are styled anupātakas by the Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. 36 The most elaborate treatment of all kinds of sins in the smṛtis is found in Manu, Yāj and Viṣṇu There is difference of opinion even among these three on certain points For example, Manu³⁵ XI. 56 says that forgetting the Veda, reviling the Vedas, giving false evidence, slaying a friend, eating forbidden food and food that is unfit for eating or should not be eaten, are lapses similar to drinking *surā*; while Yāj. III. 228 states that three out of these (viz reviling the Vedas, slaying a friend and forgetting the Veda studied by a person) along with the reviling of a *guru* by attributing false faults are similar to the murder of a brāhmaṇa. The result is that there is an option as to the expiation to be prescribed for these sins.